Evidence of meeting #129 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was conservative.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I am not a P9, for the clerk's information. I'm an M1.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thanks, Chair.
It's a question mostly for my colleague who has moved the amendment that we're speaking to because, again, it's just in the preamble.
Quite frankly, I was shocked at the testimony we've heard so far on the India study. I think the last meeting was probably one of the most difficult meetings I've had to listen to when we had one of the witnesses talk about his experience.
I don't like limiting. I don't remember what we agreed to on India. I think it was six meetings, but we may find at the end of those six meetings that there's still more information that we want to hear. In fact, it was your party that brought a motion to set up a whole new committee on it.
If we pass this motion, we're going to be limited because we've only agreed to do a study of six meetings. How, if the committee chooses to, are we going to extend either the Russia or the India study if we pass this motion?
It's a concern I have about what we're doing. I just would like some clarity on that because it seems like we're committing.... You've said that once we finish the study on India.... Right now, finishing the study on India is actually six meetings, so it doesn't give us flexibility if we choose to extend either or both of these studies.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I can answer Ms. Damoff's questions. Those are fair points.
I do believe that the motion I brought forward that started the investigation into India's interference in Canada stated “no fewer than six meetings”, so it's open, and my amendment to the motion brought forward by Mr. Motz simply uses the word “concluded”. It's totally up to this committee as to when we feel it's concluded. I agree with you. There may be more witnesses that we want to hear from. We always have the ability to extend our meetings for that, but I do think there are other things this committee needs to look at.
Foreign interference is absolutely important, which is why I have prioritized both the Russian study and the Indian study. I would disagree. It's not part of the preamble. Everything after the word “that” is part of the actual motion, so if we adopt this, that's not a preamble; it's actually a directive that we have to complete these two before we move on to everything else.
I am putting priority on those through the amendment. I do agree with you that they should have priority, and I will support that. I also cannot ignore the fact that, in many small communities right across Canada, there are serious concerns about mental health and its intersection with public safety. That's why I would also like to see us, in a motion, commit to studying those at some point in the future.
I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't see a problem with this motion.
Indeed, as Mr. MacGregor just said, there is no indication that a specific number of meetings would be set for the India interference study. We haven't had any projections on the schedule of the committee's work for the last few months, so I think it's entirely reasonable to include it in a motion to ensure that we can undertake the studies proposed by the motions we passed previously.
However, I see that the clock is ticking. The second hour of that meeting was supposed to be for the study of the draft report on auto theft. If we don't get there because we're debating this motion, I might move that we add to the motion that the report must be completed before we start the other studies. However, if everyone agrees to adopt the motion quickly, I'm perfectly prepared to adopt it as is so that we can move on to the study of the draft report on car thefts.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
I did not see your hand. I apologize. I'll go to you next.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Sorry, I don't want to interfere, but I know that the rules would say that, basically, if this motion...and I know the chair ruled on it. This motion just uses Russia in the preamble. It is about two different things, and it should be given 48 hours' notice in both official languages before it is discussed by the committee.
Conservative
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Well, it's incredibly disappointing. I understand that the amendments help make this motion a little better. We already acknowledged that there are serious issues and concerns around whether or not...and Dr. Fry also talked about the procedural elements of this. However, it's fine if the Conservatives want to take the chair today and completely shut down the ability to continue our study on India and to limit our study on Russia. I mean, it fits within the Conservatives' approach.
We had, as a committee, by majority vote determined our next steps, which was Mr. MacGregor's motion on foreign interference by India. We are just getting into some of that testimony.
The Russian study, the testimony we just heard today—with really compelling information, I think, about journalism and how journalists are being targeted—before we even concluded the full hour of that, we had Conservatives reprogramming the plan to try to avoid continuing that testimony or that study.
When it comes to the amendment itself, while I recognize Mr. MacGregor's attempts to, again, at least include it, I think the fact that the first version didn't make any mention of our studies around India should be very concerning. We saw that Conservatives, during our study on foreign interference by India, did not ask questions about India's involvement—
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I just want to clarify. This committee had already agreed to the meetings about India, so it was viewed as needlessly repetitive to include that in there because we were going to be conducting these meetings on India. However, we did support the friendly amendment brought forward by Mr. MacGregor, and we have no problems with continuing that study.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
That is up to me, Ms. O'Connell.
Ms. O'Connell, you may resume your time to speak.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
We can clearly see how this is going to go. The committee can be just points of order and will now just be debate because they don't like my calling out the fact that Conservatives didn't ask about India's involvement, which was outlined by community members through testimony and the RCMP press conference, and instead, actually, it was Mr. Motz who asked about criminals in India, which seemed to be of higher importance than what Canadians were feeling in this country.
To add it as an amendment to this motion does a real disservice to the very compelling testimony we heard. It feels like a slapped-on saving face for a motion that, clearly, was drawn up by Conservatives who don't want to talk about India interfering with our democratic institutions and the allegations around violence in our communities being organized, deeply, with organized crime from India.
I don't think the fact that it was left out of this motion is a mistake. The fact that Conservatives would like to move away from that study is not surprising, given how—
Conservative
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, I think there needs to be a limit on the amount of patently false information that an individual can give at any committee, and what we're hearing spewed at this current moment is certainly patently false.